W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-exi@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Starter Questions about EXI

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:44:11 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0807241444me31a4e4x83f7af0b7c3ac57c@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-exi@w3.org
Reading a little more in HTML5 [1] and RFC2046 [2], it seems I would supply
a parameter in the MIME type to specify the encoding?

Would the following be technically correct?

<object type="image/svg+xml; Content-transfer-encoding=x-exi"
   <object type="image/svg+xml; Content-transfer-encoding=x-gzip"
      <object type="image/svg+xml" data="foo.svg">
        <p>Fallback content</p>


[1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#type6
[2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2046.html

On 7/24/08, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I still haven't gone through much of the documentation but I was hoping for
> some quick answers first:
> 1) Will there be a encoding type that one can use on web servers (for
> instance in Apache's .htaccess)?  For instance:
> AddType image/svg+xml .svge
> AddEncoding exi .svge
> 2) I serve a lot of gzip-encoded SVG on my site using html:object like
> this:
>     <object type="image/svg+xml" data="foo.svgz"><p>Fallback</p></object>
> Would there be a way to wrap another <object> around this to offer the
> EXI-encoded version to browsers that support it?  How could one achieve
> this?
> In other words, what sort of mechanisms can be put in place between client
> and server such that those browsers that might adopt EXI earlier can benefit
> but non-adopters can still cope?
> Thanks!
> Jeff Schiller
> http://blog.codedread.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 21:44:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 18:12:37 GMT